Abstract

Purpose: Treatment Planning System (TPS) errors can affect large numbers of cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. Using an independent recalculation system, the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) can identify institutions that have not sufficiently modelled their linear accelerators in their TPS model. Methods: Linear accelerator point measurement data from IROC-H’s site visits was aggregated and analyzed from over 30 linear accelerator models. Dosimetrically similar models were combined to create “classes”. The class data was used to construct customized beam models in an independent treatment dose verification system (TVS). Approximately 200 head and neck phantom plans from 2012 to 2015 were recalculated using this TVS. Comparison of plan accuracy was evaluated by comparing the measured dose to the institution’s TPS dose as well as the TVS dose. In cases where the TVS was more accurate than the institution by an average of >2%, the institution was identified as having a non-negligible TPS error. Results: Of the ∼200 recalculated plans, the average improvement using the TVS was ∼0.1%; i.e. the recalculation, on average, slightly outperformed the institution’s TPS. Of all the recalculated phantoms, 20% were identified as having a non-negligible TPS error. Fourteen plans failed current IROC-H criteria; the average TVSmore » improvement of the failing plans was ∼3% and 57% were found to have non-negligible TPS errors. Conclusion: IROC-H has developed an independent recalculation system to identify institutions that have considerable TPS errors. A large number of institutions were found to have non-negligible TPS errors. Even institutions that passed IROC-H criteria could be identified as having a TPS error. Resolution of such errors would improve dose delivery for a large number of IROC-H phantoms and ultimately, patients.« less

@article{osti_22653876,
title = {MO-FG-202-05: Identifying Treatment Planning System Errors in IROC-H Phantom Irradiations},
author = {Kerns, J and Followill, D and Howell, R and Melancon, A and Stingo, F and Kry, S},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Treatment Planning System (TPS) errors can affect large numbers of cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. Using an independent recalculation system, the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) can identify institutions that have not sufficiently modelled their linear accelerators in their TPS model. Methods: Linear accelerator point measurement data from IROC-H’s site visits was aggregated and analyzed from over 30 linear accelerator models. Dosimetrically similar models were combined to create “classes”. The class data was used to construct customized beam models in an independent treatment dose verification system (TVS). Approximately 200 head and neck phantom plans from 2012 to 2015 were recalculated using this TVS. Comparison of plan accuracy was evaluated by comparing the measured dose to the institution’s TPS dose as well as the TVS dose. In cases where the TVS was more accurate than the institution by an average of >2%, the institution was identified as having a non-negligible TPS error. Results: Of the ∼200 recalculated plans, the average improvement using the TVS was ∼0.1%; i.e. the recalculation, on average, slightly outperformed the institution’s TPS. Of all the recalculated phantoms, 20% were identified as having a non-negligible TPS error. Fourteen plans failed current IROC-H criteria; the average TVS improvement of the failing plans was ∼3% and 57% were found to have non-negligible TPS errors. Conclusion: IROC-H has developed an independent recalculation system to identify institutions that have considerable TPS errors. A large number of institutions were found to have non-negligible TPS errors. Even institutions that passed IROC-H criteria could be identified as having a TPS error. Resolution of such errors would improve dose delivery for a large number of IROC-H phantoms and ultimately, patients.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957307},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}

Purpose: To create a real-time EPID-based treatment verification system which robustly detects treatment delivery and patient attenuation variations. Methods: Treatment plan DICOM files sent to the record-and-verify system are captured and utilized to predict EPID images for each planned control point using a modified GPU-based digitally reconstructed radiograph algorithm which accounts for the patient attenuation, source energy fluence, source size effects, and MLC attenuation. The DICOM and predicted images are utilized by our C++ treatment verification software which compares EPID acquired 1024×768 resolution frames acquired at ∼8.5hz from Varian Truebeam™ system. To maximize detection sensitivity, image comparisons determine (1) ifmore » radiation exists outside of the desired treatment field; (2) if radiation is lacking inside the treatment field; (3) if translations, rotations, and magnifications of the image are within tolerance. Acquisition was tested with known test fields and prior patient fields. Error detection was tested in real-time and utilizing images acquired during treatment with another system. Results: The computational time of the prediction algorithms, for a patient plan with 350 control points and 60×60×42cm^3 CT volume, is 2–3minutes on CPU and <27 seconds on GPU for 1024×768 images. The verification software requires a maximum of ∼9ms and ∼19ms for 512×384 and 1024×768 resolution images, respectively, to perform image analysis and dosimetric validations. Typical variations in geometric parameters between reference and the measured images are 0.32°for gantry rotation, 1.006 for scaling factor, and 0.67mm for translation. For excess out-of-field/missing in-field fluence, with masks extending 1mm (at isocenter) from the detected aperture edge, the average total in-field area missing EPID fluence was 1.5mm2 the out-of-field excess EPID fluence was 8mm^2, both below error tolerances. Conclusion: A real-time verification software, with EPID images prediction algorithm, was developed. The system is capable of performing verifications between frames acquisitions and identifying source(s) of any out-of-tolerance variations. This work was supported in part by Varian Medical Systems.« less

Purpose: To understand the uncertainties in proton therapy treatment planning for the IROC- Houston proton phantom QA program due to variations in CT technique and proton energy. Methods: A CT phantom used by IROC-H during therapy site visits was scanned using three CT techniques (80, 120, 140kV) with a CT scanner used for proton therapy simulations and irradiated with a passively scattered beam at three energies (140, 200, 250 MeV) to measure, respectively, HU and Relative Linear Stopping Power (RLSP) in order to create HU to RLSP calibration curves for comparison with reference curves used by current proton treatment planningmore » systems. The phantom has proton equivalent materials with a wide variety of HU and RLSPs to allow for the creation of a calibration curve for common tissue equivalent materials. Treatment plans were created for a lung phantom using the various CT technique/ beam energy calibration curves to determine the differences in the dose distributions by performing a gamma analysis. Results: Comparison of the calibration curves created using the phantom materials showed a maximum difference of 12% for a given material between the custom curve and the reference curve currently used by the treatment planning system. The highest differences were a Result of using an 80 kV CT technique and a 250 MeV high proton energy. A comparison of the completed treatment plans will be presented. Conclusion: These results indicate the possibility of differences in proton HU to RLSP calibration curves caused by varying CT technique and proton energy that could manifest as differences in planned and delivered dose distributions, particularly at high proton energies and low kV CT techniques. These differences could Result in discrepancies not accounted for by IROC-Houston and could possibly affect proton institutions’ pass rate when irradiating the proton phantoms.« less

Purpose: To create and test an accurate EPID-frame-based VMAT QA metric to detect gross dose errors in real-time and to provide information about the source of error. Methods: A Swiss cheese model was created for an EPID-based real-time QA process. The system compares a treatmentplan- based reference set of EPID images with images acquired over each 2° gantry angle interval. The metric utilizes a sequence of independent consecutively executed error detection Methods: a masking technique that verifies infield radiation delivery and ensures no out-of-field radiation; output normalization checks at two different stages; global image alignment to quantify rotation, scaling andmore » translation; standard gamma evaluation (3%, 3 mm) and pixel intensity deviation checks including and excluding high dose gradient regions. Tolerances for each test were determined. For algorithm testing, twelve different types of errors were selected to modify the original plan. Corresponding predictions for each test case were generated, which included measurement-based noise. Each test case was run multiple times (with different noise per run) to assess the ability to detect introduced errors. Results: Averaged over five test runs, 99.1% of all plan variations that resulted in patient dose errors were detected within 2° and 100% within 4° (∼1% of patient dose delivery). Including cases that led to slightly modified but clinically equivalent plans, 91.5% were detected by the system within 2°. Based on the type of method that detected the error, determination of error sources was achieved. Conclusion: An EPID-based during-treatment error detection system for VMAT deliveries was successfully designed and tested. The system utilizes a sequence of methods to identify and prevent gross treatment delivery errors. The system was inspected for robustness with realistic noise variations, demonstrating that it has the potential to detect a large majority of errors in real-time and indicate the error source. J. V. Siebers receives funding support from Varian Medical Systems.« less

Purpose: The anthropomorphic phantom program at the Houston branch of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC-Houston) is an end-to-end test that can be used to determine whether an institution can accurately model, calculate, and deliver an intensity modulated radiation therapy dose distribution. Currently, institutions that do not meet IROC-Houston's criteria have no specific information with which to identify and correct problems. In the present study, an independent recalculation system was developed to identify treatment planning system (TPS) calculation errors. Methods and Materials: A recalculation system was commissioned and customized using IROC-Houston measurement reference dosimetry data for common linear acceleratormore » classes. Using this system, 259 head and neck phantom irradiations were recalculated. Both the recalculation and the institution's TPS calculation were compared with the delivered dose that was measured. In cases in which the recalculation was statistically more accurate by 2% on average or 3% at a single measurement location than was the institution's TPS, the irradiation was flagged as having a “considerable” institutional calculation error. The error rates were also examined according to the linear accelerator vendor and delivery technique. Results: Surprisingly, on average, the reference recalculation system had better accuracy than the institution's TPS. Considerable TPS errors were found in 17% (n=45) of the head and neck irradiations. Also, 68% (n=13) of the irradiations that failed to meet the IROC-Houston criteria were found to have calculation errors. Conclusions: Nearly 1 in 5 institutions were found to have TPS errors in their intensity modulated radiation therapy calculations, highlighting the need for careful beam modeling and calculation in the TPS. An independent recalculation system can help identify the presence of TPS errors and pass on the knowledge to the institution.« less

Purpose: Validate implementation of a published RBE model for DSB induction (RBEDSB) in several general purpose Monte Carlo (MC) code systems and the RayStation™ treatment planning system (TPS). For protons and other light ions, DSB induction is a critical initiating molecular event that correlates well with the RBE for cell survival. Methods: An efficient algorithm to incorporate information on proton and light ion RBEDSB from the independently tested Monte Carlo Damage Simulation (MCDS) has now been integrated into MCNP (Stewart et al. PMB 60, 8249–8274, 2015), FLUKA, TOPAS and a research build of the RayStation™ TPS. To cross-validate the RBEDSBmore » model implementation LET distributions, depth-dose and lateral (dose and RBEDSB) profiles for monodirectional monoenergetic (100 to 200 MeV) protons incident on a water phantom are compared. The effects of recoil and secondary ion production ({sub 2}H{sub +}, {sub 3}H{sub +}, {sub 3}He{sub 2+}, {sub 4}He{sub 2+}), spot size (3 and 10 mm), and transport physics on beam profiles and RBEDSB are examined. Results: Depth-dose and RBEDSB profiles among all of the MC models are in excellent agreement using a 1 mm distance criterion (width of a voxel). For a 100 MeV proton beam (10 mm spot), RBEDSB = 1.2 ± 0.03 (− 2–3%) at the tip of the Bragg peak and increases to 1.59 ± 0.3 two mm distal to the Bragg peak. RBEDSB tends to decrease as the kinetic energy of the incident proton increases. Conclusion: The model for proton RBEDSB has been accurately implemented into FLUKA, MCNP, TOPAS and the RayStation™TPS. The transport of secondary light ions (Z > 1) has a significant impact on RBEDSB, especially distal to the Bragg peak, although light ions have a small effect on (dosexRBEDSB) profiles. The ability to incorporate spatial variations in proton RBE within a TPS creates new opportunities to individualize treatment plans and increase the therapeutic ratio. Dr. Erik Traneus is employed full-time as a Research Scientist at RaySearch Laboratories. The research build of the RayStation used in the study was made available to the University of Washington free of charge. RaySearch Laboratories did not provide any monetary support for the reported studies.« less